LockheedTheDragon

I think that part of the point of Wikimedia complying with the Order. Which you can read the Order at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation . Also the page the lawsuit is actually about is still up, but frozen.

It is a public concern and any organization/people not a part of the lawsuit can talk and discuss it. Which we are doing. I even used the Wikipedia page we are talking about to discuss the lawsuit since it has the Order is on it. The full lawsuit isn't on that page, I made a mistake last night.

If there is a ongoing lawsuit that Wikimedia isn't a part of then they can have a Wikipedia page and discussion going on. That's their right.

My agreement is with the request in the Order for Wikimedia to not having ongoing discussion about the lawsuit. This isn't a gag order on everyone, it is just Wikimedia removing the info on the page about the lawsuit. And Wikimedia has info why they removed it and allowing people to read the Order so I think that is Wikimedia saying something without discussing it and it makes the Indian government look bad.

The order mentions more than "complicates the issue" so you might want to read the Order and gives more examples of what you see of their vagueness because it seemed reasonable to me. I find the lawsuit itself wrong and should have been thrown out.

I think this is confusing so tried to understand it and here is what I understand. The Wikipedia page for Asian News International is up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International And it says things like ANI is the "mouthpiece" of the Indian government. There is a section about the lawsuit and it quotes what ANI didn't like about it. This is what the lawsuit was first about, but this page and the discussion page are still up as of 27 Oct 2024. The page can't be modified and given what you can see it looks like there was some editing wars that happened before editing was taken away.

Now about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation The article and discussion page that was taken down is about the ongoing lawsuit. It been replaced with a page saying it was taken down and a link to the actual lawsuit. Which I suggest people read. I do think the Indian government has a point if you read the lawsuit. This is a ongoing lawsuit and the page taken down had info on it and a discussion page where people were talking about the ongoing lawsuit. The lawsuit says that this "...Complicates and compounds the issue at hand." And if you know anything about lawsuits the first thing people do or are told to do is to shut up about it. This page was really the opposite. I can see why Wikimedia complied.

That the lawsuit happened in the first place is disturbing. But I think Wikimedia replacement page for the ongoing lawsuit is not surprising and reasonable. If they had taken down the main article, now that would be disturbing.

Are there any communities on Lemmy that do anything similar?

Amazon Lockers. Where I use to live I would get gas at Costco but would pickup packages at the Amazon Lockers next to a gas station and go in and buy something a lot of the times (Homer voice : Fountain drinks. drool) When that gas station got a kitchen in it, I ended up getting pizza there instead of going elsewhere for food. Gas stations will adapt and change as they already been doing. There probably just won't be as much of them.

Does anyone know if he use to have Handlers? I always figured the reason he got hyped was because he had people who did his social medias for him and got him good publicity like being on The Big Bang Theory and he thought it was all him. He then fired them all and people saw the real him.

AI is more like torrents, password cracking software, TOR, ect than guns. Just because they can be used for bad or illegal things doesn't mean those software programs are bad. When companies in the past tried to get certain software banned they ran into the issue that if it could be used for legal reasons that enough for them to exist legally.

Now AI does have the issues with how it is trained so the AI itself can be problematic.

I didn't say we shouldn't talk about the problem with the AI I have issues with people making the AI the complete issue ignoring that people use the AI. It reminds me of how automakers tried to make the people driving cars the reason for deaths in car crashes.Thankfully that didn't work and automakers where forced to make cars safer making it safer on the road. It didn't stop car crashes from happening since the human element is there. Which there are things in place that partly address that (Such as Driver's license test, taking away some people's driver's license, ads reminding people of the rules of the road.). I'm annoyed that articles are doing the opposite of what car makers did. Humans are using the AI to do bad stuff mentioned that also! How can we change that? Yeah, it will probably be best to do something to the AI program, but we can't ignore the human element since they the one who are creating the AI, using the AI, and consuming the AI products.

People use guns to kill people so we need to look at both to make it happen less.

When I read the title I sarcastically thought "Oh no, why is AI deciding to create fake historical photos? Is this the first stage of the robot apocalypse?" I find the title mildly annoying because it putting the blame on the tool and ignoring that people are using it to do bad things. I find a lot of discussions about AI do this. It is like people want to avoid that it is how people are using and training the tool is the issue.

At work we can only use Edge. But we search using Google. Which you had to fight Microsoft to do. "Do you really want to change your default search engine?" Yes, I'm required to use it and Bing is annoying. But while searching on Google using Edge it is annoying the corner pop up asking me if I want to switch to Chrome. I can't, stop asking! I want to switch to Firefox but I want all of them to shut up about "switching", "downloading", or "trying".

I could see the argument that 7 was peak, but I think it was XP. My Dad pretty much downloads pictures from his phone and browser the web. One issue is some of the sites he uses are set up weird. That why he finally allowed me to upgrade him from 7 to 10. He complained about certain sites, which I really didn't pay attention to which, would give warning about browser being out of date, then the sites refused to even load. That is when he allowed me to upgrade. They probably would work but I don't want to risk issues with any sites having problems with Linux.

Your post reminded me. I worked tech support for years at an ISP and we would not help people with Linux systems. Only Windows or Macs. Android on a cell but only help with connecting to Wi-Fi and very basic settings up email if they used the ISP email.